https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782417 HC dealt with a writ challenging respondent no. 2's non-compliance with Rule 28 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, regarding removal of defects within seven days, where re-filing was allowed after a delay of 612 days. HC recorded that the Registry (respondent no. 1) permitted re-filing beyond the statutory period due to system-generated procedural permissions. HC directed respondent no. 1 to strictly follow the SOP consistent with Rules 28 and 63 henceforth. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide if sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. Petition disposed. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:57:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782417 HC dealt with a writ challenging respondent no. 2's non-compliance with Rule 28 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, regarding removal of defects within seven days, where re-filing was allowed after a delay of 612 days. HC recorded that the Registry (respondent no. 1) permitted re-filing beyond the statutory period due to system-generated procedural permissions. HC directed respondent no. 1 to strictly follow the SOP consistent with Rules 28 and 63 henceforth. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide if sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. Petition disposed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782417